The base issue is the question about whether storm damage will increase because of climate change, an issue that a certain someone feels he owns, in particular what science says about this issue. Roger starts by saying no. Joe Romm (Eli has a day job, and the bunny was too slow. The cycle time on climate blogs is approaching CNN speed) points to Pielke being quoted in Nature (2006) saying yes

Previously sceptical, Pielke says that he is now convinced that at least some of the increased losses can be blamed on climate: “Clearly, since 1970 climate change has shaped the disaster loss record.”

Romm even shows Pielke weaseling away from this at the place where Ethon dines. Back Roger against the wall and he says there is no peer reviewed scientific evidence for this. Romm points to an article by Evan Mills in Science (2005)

Global weather-related losses in recent years have been trending upward much faster than population, inflation, or insurance penetration, and faster than non–weather-related events (Fig. 2D). By some estimates, losses have increased by a factor of 2, after accounting for these factors plus increased density of insured values (23, 24).

How do we explain rising economic losses (e.g., those to crops in the heartland or physical infrastructure built on melting permafrost) that are only weakly linked to oft-cited demographic factors such as populations clustering around coastlines?

Lastly, why would rising numbers of events (10) not translate into rising costs?

Assuming that only socioeconomic factors--rather than rising emissions--influence losses may yield ill-founded policy recommendations that focus exclusively on adapting to climate change while dismissing energy policy as a legitimate part of the toolkit for responding (11). . . .

In a narrow sense, it would be a relief to learn that the only cause of rising losses is that people are moving more into harm's way. That conclusion would, however, be premature and scientifically indefensible given the paucity of data, limitations of available analyses, and consistency between observed impacts and those expected under climate change. Nor should we make the opposite mistake of attributing the observed growth in losses solely to climate change. Rather than "proof " by vigorous assertion, the constructive approach is to better understand the compounding roles of increasing vulnerability and climate change, and take affordable precautionary steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the changes rather than waiting for unaffordable consequences.

Eli couldn't really add anything civil, but this plays right into the everygreen what the hell is peer review. Sort of like pornography in the words of Justice Holmes, hard to describe, but you know it when you get shoved into the barrel to do one.

The Lab Lemming has about as good a walk through as the Rabett has seen

In between irate meetings, technical emergencies, slipping deadlines, and normal workload, you get an unsolicited email from a total stranger. Assuming it doesn’t go directly to the spam bin, opening it reveals that it is Professor Joe Blogger, associate editor of the Journal of Acceptable Results, and he’d like you to review a paper.

Hopefully the paper is on a topic with which you are actually familiar. . .

As far as I can tell, there are two basic approaches. These are ideally similar but in practice can be opposite. The first is imitation of reviews that one has received. The second is the golden rule.

For me, the first option would involve some combination of non-specific pleasantries, attacks based on a misunderstanding of the literature or techniques used, or multi-page lists of specific minor points which are not related to each other or the using-whole-sentences part of the review. So when asked to review, I tried the second method, but without any real sense of guidance or idea what I was working towards. My inability to find a type specimen of a quality review is probably due to the lack of transparency that surrounds peer review. So in order to illuminate this mysterious process, here is my reviewing experience.

Eli, on the thermonuclear side of things, what I would love to see is exactly *who* forwarded the completely out-of-context bunch of Michael Tobis' comments around, managing to get them all the way to an email from Morano?

After Michael made his heart-felt moral argument, Roger cruelly responds only with "These sort comments give far more ammo to your political enemies than anything I could ever say or do." and then further goads his buddies with the "Anyone care to give him an answer?" question.

Only hours later we have Pielke himself posting the out-of-context quotes on his own site, with the bare excuse that somebody none of the rest of us had ever heard of did it first.

I think this has just one person's fingerprints all over it, and it's not Michael Tobis.

Michael was trying to honestly understand where Roger was coming from. As an example, he reposted his own statement of principles, and added further thoughts on why he thought the Revkin piece was an issue of morality, assuming knowledge etc.

Roger responds in character, not in kind. Ugly ugly ugly.

He may be a great rhetorician, but this shows a correspondingly great lack of character. Another moral failing, clearly on the part of Roger this time.

What Arthur said. Some folks (e.g., Michael Tobis) are struggling with how to make a difference in the face of what sure looks like a looming global catastrophe. Other unnamed parties appear to be struggling with how to ratchet up their reputations, by whatever means possible (and one means is making sure that anybody who doesn't lionize them gets mugged).

This time, it's a paper that was just published that purports to show a declining trend in specific humidity in the mid/upper troposphere. It then follows that water-vapor feedback is negative rather than positive.

A major focus of the discussion over at climateaudit is a very unkind remark made by one reviewer.

Rabett Run

Subscribe Rabett Run

The Bunny Trail By Email

Contributors

Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett, a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny who finally handed in the keys and retired from his wanna be research university. The students continue to be naive but great people and the administrators continue to vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional without Eli's help. Eli notices from recent political developments that this behavior is not limited to administrators. His colleagues retain their curious inability to see the holes that they dig for themselves. Prof. Rabett is thankful that they, or at least some of them occasionally heeded his pointing out the implications of the various enthusiasms that rattle around the department and school. Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts.